View Single Post
Old August 6th, 2011, 05:12 PM   #99
deepsepia
Moderator
 
deepsepia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,205
Thanks: 47,956
Thanked 83,444 Times in 7,199 Posts
deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+deepsepia 350000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3745 Laddie View Post
Well I obviously don't want to see any innocent person going to the gallows any more than I think any murderer convicted safely automatically should (in fact I wouldn't be in favour of a mandatory sentence for any crime).But,let's get real here,you just don't want to see this punishment applied full stop,no matter how sound the conviction,no matter how cruel and disgusting the nature of the deed or deeds.Not suggesting that you're intentionally missing my points but could I respectfully suggest a re-read.
I read your post.

I posted data from the Innocence Project on 17 folks -- 17 who we know about-- who were convicted of capital crimes, were on Death Row, and were later exonerated by DNA evidence.

I take this as "ground truth" of our error rate, in cases where evidence, or techniques of analyzing evidence subsequently turned up that would enable us to subsequently prove innocence (not "not guilty" -- actually innocent, as in someone else did it, and the convicted guy didn't).

So. We know, for a fact that our Justice system will find innocent people guilty. Its happened before, and it will happen again.

Given that we know this to be a fact, do you take the position: "I know a death penalty will result in the execution of innocent men, but that's no reason not to have one"?
deepsepia is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to deepsepia For This Useful Post: